I have observed with deep concern the news of Hydro One’s bid for acquisition of Avista, and the subsequent denial of the acquisition followed by a pending appeal.
Although lacking direct insight into Avista’s actions, I strongly encourage continuing research into alternative solutions which would address company executives reaping questionable windfall compensation, and that would ultimately help to protect customers from unknown, unforeseeable and unnecessary cost increases. Examples include public power options such as P.U.D.s (even though it appears a P.U.D. remains a viable option despite a recent S-R article reporting on difficult logistical issues), municipal corporations, and generation companies or transmission companies.
There are certainly any number of important questions and matters to address, but wouldn’t it be wise for Avista’s officers and directors, and this paper, and the Inlander, Spokane City Council, Spokane County commissioners, state and federal legislators along with federal, and other affected state, agencies to fully consider and address forming alternative corporations? A pragmatic solution ultimately benefiting citizens of the Inland Northwest would provide a lasting legacy of service first begun by Washington Water Power.
James M. Murray